I am debating installing CentOS on a new HP DL580 with an MSA1000 SAN. HP offers drivers that are specific to RHEL and will not install on other RH distros i.e. RH 9.
Has anyone gotten the HP SupportPack to install under CentOS?
Thanks!
Mark A. Lewis wrote:
I am debating installing CentOS on a new HP DL580 with an MSA1000 SAN. HP offers drivers that are specific to RHEL and will not install on other RH distros i.e. RH 9.
Has anyone gotten the HP SupportPack to install under CentOS?
Thanks!
Actually, yes. I've got a pair of Proliant DL-140s running CentOS 3.4 that are running the Proliant Support Pack. I had to hack the contents of the /etc/redhat-release file to get it installed, but once done it works just great. Each of the two boxes has an FC controller and it is attached to our SAN, we're running Oracle 10g in RAC mode. I've also got some DL-320s running CentOS 3 and the PSP.
Hope that helps! -- Jay Leafey Memphis, TN jay.leafey@mindless.com
It may be your sole purpose in life to serve as a warning to others
Has anyone gotten the HP SupportPack to install under CentOS?
of the /etc/redhat-release file to get it installed, but once done it works just great. Each of the two boxes has an FC controller and it is
PSP on Centos will not get installed just by hacking redhat-relase, hack the /etc/redhat-release, then start installtion, it will miss couple of packages, u need to install thoses RPMS, by rpm -ivh --force --nopre <Package>, re-run the install process and skip the forced installed packages...works coool
Hi,
I find myself in the lucky position to receive a new desktop machine tomorrow. :)
Now, for quite a while I've been wanting to make a switch to any Unix based system for my normal work environment (= Web development), but I will still need to test my work on Windows as well.
Now.... As tomorrow I will install a fresh new machine (with a 40GB HD), I'd like to do the following: -Install CentOS as primary OS on a 30GB partition. -Install W*nd*ws XP as secondary system on a 10GB partition. -Plug in my current secondary NTFS drive for storing additional W*nd*ws stuff.
What I'm uncertain about, is the proper way to do this, and the order in which to install both OSes.
Can anyone give me an answer to the following? -Which OS can best be installed first, CentOS or XP? -Are there special actions required to enable proper dual booting? -Which boot manager can be used best CentOS' one or XP's one? -Can CentOS read (and perhaps also write?) from the NTFS partitions? -Hypothetically: would installing VMWare and installing XP in that give me pretty much 100% XP compatibility for at the very least the various web browsers such as IE, and also for XP Office?
Thanks a lot in advance!
Cheers, Olafo
-Which OS can best be installed first, CentOS or XP?
XP u need to install first, boot with Xp, create the need partion, format NTFS, install, cause win XP boot loader over writes yr GRUB boot loader, save the trouble, finsh MS first
-Are there special actions required to enable proper dual booting?
Make sure u install GRUB on MBR, so it will overwrite XP bootloader and will give u choice which OS to boot.
-Which boot manager can be used best CentOS' one or XP's one?
CentOS - GRUb
-Can CentOS read (and perhaps also write?) from the NTFS partitions?
Yes but u need NTFS support, get the RPM from http://linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net/rpm/index.html and u have rw access to NTFS
-Hypothetically: would installing VMWare and installing XP in that give me pretty much 100% XP compatibility for at the very least the various web browsers such as IE, and also for XP Office?
Yes u can move in with VMWARE also, same stuff like a OS installed in sep partions, but vmware costs $$, if u dont mind shelling out, vmware is cool, otherwise dual-boot rocks.
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 11:55 +0200, darshan jadav wrote:
-Which OS can best be installed first, CentOS or XP?
XP u need to install first, boot with Xp, create the need partion, format NTFS, install, cause win XP boot loader over writes yr GRUB boot loader, save the trouble, finsh MS first
-Are there special actions required to enable proper dual booting?
Make sure u install GRUB on MBR, so it will overwrite XP bootloader and will give u choice which OS to boot.
-Which boot manager can be used best CentOS' one or XP's one?
CentOS - GRUb
Agree, although both approaches can work.
-Can CentOS read (and perhaps also write?) from the NTFS partitions?
Yes but u need NTFS support, get the RPM from http://linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net/rpm/index.html and u have rw access to NTFS
Writing with the above is problematic at best. Can only rewrite existing files more-or-less safely. Read-only is pretty solid. Have not tried the the captive approach that uses the Windows drivers.
-Hypothetically: would installing VMWare and installing XP in that give me pretty much 100% XP compatibility for at the very least the various web browsers such as IE, and also for XP Office?
Yes u can move in with VMWARE also, same stuff like a OS installed in sep partions, but vmware costs $$, if u dont mind shelling out, vmware is cool, otherwise dual-boot rocks.
Another vote for VMware. Well worth the money if the company is paying, and probably cost-effective in terms of productivity. (Not quite the same trade-off for personal use.) Have been using VMware Workstation since V2.0 - V5.0 just hit the streets; although I use it much less now since OOo has come so far, and Crossover Office covers about 90% of my remaining M$ needs. For the OP's requirements of testing web apps, VMware is the clear winner in my book. (But then I'm of the opinion that dual-boot sucks, except for backup copies of Linux in case of failed installs/upgrades. :-)
I'd just install the old NTFS drive, copy files as necessary using a read-only NTFS mount, reformat to ext3, and use for both Linux storage and extra VMware virtual disks as needed. Can also use Samba for file sharing with VMware. Could also use the 2nd drive directly without reformatting as a physical disk in VMware, but that's a bit trickier.
Phil
The easiest order would be to install Windows XP first and than CentOS.The rest is self explaining during the install of CentOS.
success!
peter
On 4/14/05, Olaf Greve o.greve@axis.nl wrote:
Hi,
I find myself in the lucky position to receive a new desktop machine tomorrow. :)
Now, for quite a while I've been wanting to make a switch to any Unix based system for my normal work environment (= Web development), but I will still need to test my work on Windows as well.
Now.... As tomorrow I will install a fresh new machine (with a 40GB HD), I'd like to do the following: -Install CentOS as primary OS on a 30GB partition. -Install W*nd*ws XP as secondary system on a 10GB partition. -Plug in my current secondary NTFS drive for storing additional W*nd*ws stuff.
What I'm uncertain about, is the proper way to do this, and the order in which to install both OSes.
Can anyone give me an answer to the following? -Which OS can best be installed first, CentOS or XP? -Are there special actions required to enable proper dual booting? -Which boot manager can be used best CentOS' one or XP's one? -Can CentOS read (and perhaps also write?) from the NTFS partitions? -Hypothetically: would installing VMWare and installing XP in that give me pretty much 100% XP compatibility for at the very least the various web browsers such as IE, and also for XP Office?
Thanks a lot in advance!
Cheers, Olafo _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Here is the process I do it in:
#1: Install WinXP normally. #2: Use a special liveCD http://www.sysresccd.org/ to shrink the NTFS partition. #3: Use the same liveCD to format the empty space created from #2 with ext3. #4: Install CentOS telling it to remove all linux partitions (it will only touch the ext3 created in #3).
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 11:39 +0200, Olaf Greve wrote:
Hi,
I find myself in the lucky position to receive a new desktop machine tomorrow. :)
Now, for quite a while I've been wanting to make a switch to any Unix based system for my normal work environment (= Web development), but I will still need to test my work on Windows as well.
Now.... As tomorrow I will install a fresh new machine (with a 40GB HD), I'd like to do the following: -Install CentOS as primary OS on a 30GB partition. -Install W*nd*ws XP as secondary system on a 10GB partition. -Plug in my current secondary NTFS drive for storing additional W*nd*ws stuff.
What I'm uncertain about, is the proper way to do this, and the order in which to install both OSes.
Can anyone give me an answer to the following? -Which OS can best be installed first, CentOS or XP? -Are there special actions required to enable proper dual booting? -Which boot manager can be used best CentOS' one or XP's one? -Can CentOS read (and perhaps also write?) from the NTFS partitions? -Hypothetically: would installing VMWare and installing XP in that give me pretty much 100% XP compatibility for at the very least the various web browsers such as IE, and also for XP Office?
Thanks a lot in advance!
Cheers, Olafo _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Btw I don't think linux-ntfs will write to ntfs (someone will correct me if wrong), but will allow reading. You can always use captive-ntfs but not sure I would recommend that as a regular heavy usage method, but handy if you need to mount and write the odd file to it.
On 4/14/05, ryanag@zoominternet.net ryanag@zoominternet.net wrote:
Here is the process I do it in:
#1: Install WinXP normally. #2: Use a special liveCD http://www.sysresccd.org/ to shrink the NTFS partition. #3: Use the same liveCD to format the empty space created from #2 with ext3. #4: Install CentOS telling it to remove all linux partitions (it will only touch the ext3 created in #3).
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 11:39 +0200, Olaf Greve wrote:
Hi,
I find myself in the lucky position to receive a new desktop machine tomorrow. :)
Now, for quite a while I've been wanting to make a switch to any Unix based system for my normal work environment (= Web development), but I will still need to test my work on Windows as well.
Now.... As tomorrow I will install a fresh new machine (with a 40GB HD), I'd like to do the following: -Install CentOS as primary OS on a 30GB partition. -Install W*nd*ws XP as secondary system on a 10GB partition. -Plug in my current secondary NTFS drive for storing additional W*nd*ws stuff.
What I'm uncertain about, is the proper way to do this, and the order in which to install both OSes.
Can anyone give me an answer to the following? -Which OS can best be installed first, CentOS or XP? -Are there special actions required to enable proper dual booting? -Which boot manager can be used best CentOS' one or XP's one? -Can CentOS read (and perhaps also write?) from the NTFS partitions? -Hypothetically: would installing VMWare and installing XP in that give me pretty much 100% XP compatibility for at the very least the various web browsers such as IE, and also for XP Office?
Thanks a lot in advance!
Cheers, Olafo _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Ian mu wrote:
Btw I don't think linux-ntfs will write to ntfs (someone will correct me if wrong), but will allow reading. You can always use captive-ntfs but not sure I would recommend that as a regular heavy usage method, but handy if you need to mount and write the odd file to it.
If you want to share files between windows & linux, use fat32 (create a partition for this).
If you want to access your linux files from windows (explore2fs and the like), ask yourself if you really need LVM2 when you install CentOS? Windows does not know about LVM2 so any tools you want to use need to be updated (in progress for Explore2fs, other tools I don't know about).
John.
On 4/14/05, ryanag@zoominternet.net ryanag@zoominternet.net wrote:
Here is the process I do it in:
#1: Install WinXP normally. #2: Use a special liveCD http://www.sysresccd.org/ to shrink the NTFS partition. #3: Use the same liveCD to format the empty space created from #2 with ext3. #4: Install CentOS telling it to remove all linux partitions (it will only touch the ext3 created in #3).
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 11:39 +0200, Olaf Greve wrote:
Hi,
I find myself in the lucky position to receive a new desktop machine tomorrow. :)
Now, for quite a while I've been wanting to make a switch to any Unix based system for my normal work environment (= Web development), but I will still need to test my work on Windows as well.
Now.... As tomorrow I will install a fresh new machine (with a 40GB HD), I'd like to do the following: -Install CentOS as primary OS on a 30GB partition. -Install W*nd*ws XP as secondary system on a 10GB partition. -Plug in my current secondary NTFS drive for storing additional W*nd*ws stuff.
What I'm uncertain about, is the proper way to do this, and the order in which to install both OSes.
Can anyone give me an answer to the following? -Which OS can best be installed first, CentOS or XP? -Are there special actions required to enable proper dual booting? -Which boot manager can be used best CentOS' one or XP's one? -Can CentOS read (and perhaps also write?) from the NTFS partitions? -Hypothetically: would installing VMWare and installing XP in that give me pretty much 100% XP compatibility for at the very least the various web browsers such as IE, and also for XP Office?
Thanks a lot in advance!
Cheers, Olafo _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Hi all,
Thanks a lot for the excellent suggestions!
As soon as the machine is in, I think I'll go for additional HD space and make sure to install Windows on a FAT32 partition rather than an NTFS one (good suggestion regarding the FAT32 one, it slipped my mind that FAT32 can be written (and read) by Linux as well, without any issues).
Then a further question: for some of our communication we use MSN Messenger. When looking on the Internet with Google, I came across AMSN (a SourceForge "freeware version of MSN"). Does anyone have any experiences with this Messenger? Does it work (equally) well as the more recent MSN versions and can it work successfully for chatting with people using MSN, or is it just the so-manyth Messenger that uses their own channels? Also, if this isn't the most ideal Messenger to use for communicating with people using MSN Messenger, can someone suggest me a better solution?
Cheers, Olafo
Personally I use gaim, which does msn/yahoo/icq/aim/irc.
Ian
On 4/15/05, Olaf Greve o.greve@axis.nl wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks a lot for the excellent suggestions!
As soon as the machine is in, I think I'll go for additional HD space and make sure to install Windows on a FAT32 partition rather than an NTFS one (good suggestion regarding the FAT32 one, it slipped my mind that FAT32 can be written (and read) by Linux as well, without any issues).
Then a further question: for some of our communication we use MSN Messenger. When looking on the Internet with Google, I came across AMSN (a SourceForge "freeware version of MSN"). Does anyone have any experiences with this Messenger? Does it work (equally) well as the more recent MSN versions and can it work successfully for chatting with people using MSN, or is it just the so-manyth Messenger that uses their own channels? Also, if this isn't the most ideal Messenger to use for communicating with people using MSN Messenger, can someone suggest me a better solution?
Cheers, Olafo _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Hi,
Personally I use gaim, which does msn/yahoo/icq/aim/irc.
Tnx! Actually... After typing my previous message I also came across that one; sounds cool! I'll give that one a shot.
Cheers! Olafo
On 4/15/05, Olaf Greve o.greve@axis.nl wrote:
Then a further question: for some of our communication we use MSN Messenger. When looking on the Internet with Google, I came across AMSN (a SourceForge "freeware version of MSN"). Does anyone have any experiences with this Messenger? Does it work (equally) well as the more recent MSN versions and can it work successfully for chatting with people using MSN, or is it just the so-manyth Messenger that uses their own channels? Also, if this isn't the most ideal Messenger to use for communicating with people using MSN Messenger, can someone suggest me a better solution?
I personally use "GAIM" (yum install gaim) and it "just works". I like it because I am on AIM, ICQ, YIM and MSN and having 4 IM applications running at the same time isn't really my cup of tea... Haven't tested AMSN, so I can't help you with that.
Best regards Michael Boman
Michael Boman wrote:
On 4/15/05, Olaf Greve o.greve@axis.nl wrote:
Then a further question: for some of our communication we use MSN Messenger. When looking on the Internet with Google, I came across AMSN (a SourceForge "freeware version of MSN"). Does anyone have any experiences with this Messenger? Does it work (equally) well as the more recent MSN versions and can it work successfully for chatting with people using MSN, or is it just the so-manyth Messenger that uses their own channels? Also, if this isn't the most ideal Messenger to use for communicating with people using MSN Messenger, can someone suggest me a better solution?
I personally use "GAIM" (yum install gaim) and it "just works". I like it because I am on AIM, ICQ, YIM and MSN and having 4 IM applications running at the same time isn't really my cup of tea... Haven't tested AMSN, so I can't help you with that.
IMHO gaim is so far from ideal, especialy for me, because I use linux version and have BIG troubles to communicate in cyrillic with friend (I am Bulgarian), who use some IM under Windows. for me SIM work fine :-) And have support for MSN Messanger
Best regards Michael Boman _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Hello,
I tend to use amsn rather than the rest. Amsn has to possibillity to connect via the http protocol (tcp 80) So i don't have to open an extra port in my firewall.Besides it uses tls which is similar to ssl.
cheers,
tobaccofarm On 4/15/05, Olaf Greve o.greve@axis.nl wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks a lot for the excellent suggestions!
As soon as the machine is in, I think I'll go for additional HD space and make sure to install Windows on a FAT32 partition rather than an NTFS one (good suggestion regarding the FAT32 one, it slipped my mind that FAT32 can be written (and read) by Linux as well, without any issues).
Then a further question: for some of our communication we use MSN Messenger. When looking on the Internet with Google, I came across AMSN (a SourceForge "freeware version of MSN"). Does anyone have any experiences with this Messenger? Does it work (equally) well as the more recent MSN versions and can it work successfully for chatting with people using MSN, or is it just the so-manyth Messenger that uses their own channels? Also, if this isn't the most ideal Messenger to use for communicating with people using MSN Messenger, can someone suggest me a better solution?
Cheers, Olafo _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 4/15/05, tobaccofarm phaceton@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I tend to use amsn rather than the rest. Amsn has to possibillity to connect via the http protocol (tcp 80) So i don't have to open an extra port in my firewall.Besides it uses tls which is similar to ssl.
Gaim and gaim-encryption provide encryption on any of the IM channels. Gaim is a little buggy, but it has an active developer community and is always getting better.
I like gaim - same interface when I'm at home (Linux) and work (not Linux).
Greg
Nothing wrong with using the tool you like most :-)
Peter
On 4/15/05, Greg Knaddison greg.knaddison@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/15/05, tobaccofarm phaceton@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I tend to use amsn rather than the rest. Amsn has to possibillity to connect via the http protocol (tcp 80) So i don't have to open an extra port in my firewall.Besides it uses tls which is similar to ssl.
Gaim and gaim-encryption provide encryption on any of the IM channels. Gaim is a little buggy, but it has an active developer community and is always getting better.
I like gaim - same interface when I'm at home (Linux) and work (not Linux).
Greg _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Hi,
Well, the installation of the dual W*nd*ws 2000 and CentOS boot worked swell. I have followed the instructions regarding first setting up Win2K on a separate drive, then making that the slave drive, and setting up CentOS on the second drive. After performing the Grub patch, it now works fine! :)
I already like CentOS a lot, and I've got most of the important things set-up (i.e. Firefox, Thunderbird, Gaim, Openoffice, webserver software, ...), so I'm almost ready to roll.
However... There are a few W*nd*ws programs which I actually like, and for which I'd like to get good Linux alternatives. I hope someone can make some good suggestions for that...
In particular, I'm looking for good substitutes for the following W*nd*ws software:
- Ultraedit (!!! very important !!!) - vi is cool for terminal stuff, but for programming etc. I prefer Ultraedit (column mode, multiple windows, replace in files, regular expressions, etc.).
- Jasc Paint Shop Pro, or Adobe Photoshop - often The Gimp is mentioned, but is it really as powerful? I particularly like PSP (as I think it's more intuitive than PS), but over here at work we also use PS a lot... I fear this may be one of the very few remaining reasons to keep W*nd*ws at all on the 2nd drive...:(
- Flash MX (7.20). I fear there is no Linux variant of this one, but I'm asking just in case...
Cheers! Olafo
Hi,
In my quest for finding good means to run W*nd*ws programs like IE and Ultraedit I have just decided to give Wine a go.
Now, the machine I have has an AMD Sempron 2300 processor, and the CentOS version is version 4 (with all the patches and upgrades applied to it).
The question then becomes: which Wine version can I best use? There are basically two lines that seem to best match CentOS 4, being the one that is RHEL 3 compatible, and, OTOH, the one for Red Hat Linux 9 (which perhaps has a closer matching kernel???).
Also, out of those two lines, which one can I best use: the Athlon version, or the i686 one?
To summarise: My installation is: AMD Sempron 2300 + CentOS 4.
The available options to chose from that I think come closest are: 1) RHEL 3 Athlon 2) RHEL 3 i686 3) RH 9 Athlon 4) RH 9 i686
Which one would best fit in your opinion?
Cheers! Olafo
To summarise: My installation is: AMD Sempron 2300 + CentOS 4.
The available options to chose from that I think come closest are:
- RHEL 3 Athlon
- RHEL 3 i686
- RH 9 Athlon
- RH 9 i686
As CentOS 4 is a RHEL 4 rebuild, I'd go with the RHEL3 version of the package. As for the version, as Semprons are basicly the same as AMD Athlon XP's, get the Athlon version.
Cipriano Groenendal wrote:
To summarise: My installation is: AMD Sempron 2300 + CentOS 4.
The available options to chose from that I think come closest are:
- RHEL 3 Athlon
- RHEL 3 i686
- RH 9 Athlon
- RH 9 i686
As CentOS 4 is a RHEL 4 rebuild, I'd go with the RHEL3 version of the package. As for the version, as Semprons are basicly the same as AMD Athlon XP's, get the Athlon version.
'
Semproms lower then 3100+ I think are similiar to XP athlons, I think the ones after that are based on the Athlon64 core with the 64bitness turned off. I don't know what package they would use, but I'd probably pick i686 just to be safe.
rgds
Franki
Quoting Olaf Greve o.greve@axis.nl:
Hi,
In my quest for finding good means to run W*nd*ws programs like IE and Ultraedit I have just decided to give Wine a go.
Now, the machine I have has an AMD Sempron 2300 processor, and the CentOS version is version 4 (with all the patches and upgrades applied to it).
The question then becomes: which Wine version can I best use? There are basically two lines that seem to best match CentOS 4, being the one that is RHEL 3 compatible, and, OTOH, the one for Red Hat Linux 9 (which perhaps has a closer matching kernel???).
Also, out of those two lines, which one can I best use: the Athlon version, or the i686 one?
To summarise: My installation is: AMD Sempron 2300 + CentOS 4.
The available options to chose from that I think come closest are:
- RHEL 3 Athlon
- RHEL 3 i686
- RH 9 Athlon
- RH 9 i686
Which one would best fit in your opinion?
Cheers! Olafo
I might be more inclined to rebuild a SRPM from winehq.com. Red Hat 9 has been out of support for almost a year, and although the Fedora Legacy project may provide updates, I don't believe they have a current release. The version that is released with RHEL 3 would be OK as Red Hat will continue to support RHEL 3 for many years to come. As this is RHEL, it means that whatever base version was released when that version of RHEL was new is the version that you will be using for the long haul. Any updates will most likely be in the form of patches that are backported to the base version. In other words, don't expect this to be a current version of Wine. As I recall, CentOS 4 is most closely related to Fedora Core 3, so I would choose to rebuild the winehq SRPM for Fedora Core 3 which is located at: http://cogent.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/wine/wine-20050310-1fc3winehq.src.rpm
Barry
A sempron is basically an Athlon XP....
So you should use the Athlon kernel...
P.
Olaf Greve wrote:
Hi,
In my quest for finding good means to run W*nd*ws programs like IE and Ultraedit I have just decided to give Wine a go.
Now, the machine I have has an AMD Sempron 2300 processor, and the CentOS version is version 4 (with all the patches and upgrades applied to it).
The question then becomes: which Wine version can I best use? There are basically two lines that seem to best match CentOS 4, being the one that is RHEL 3 compatible, and, OTOH, the one for Red Hat Linux 9 (which perhaps has a closer matching kernel???).
Also, out of those two lines, which one can I best use: the Athlon version, or the i686 one?
To summarise: My installation is: AMD Sempron 2300 + CentOS 4.
The available options to chose from that I think come closest are:
- RHEL 3 Athlon
- RHEL 3 i686
- RH 9 Athlon
- RH 9 i686
Which one would best fit in your opinion?
Cheers! Olafo _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040728/
quote: The Sempron 3100+ for Socket 754 based on Athlon64 technology is included, too, but cannot and should not be compared, as it doesn't really belong in the value processor segment due to its speed - and price.
only the low end semprons are similiar to athlonXP's, from 3100+ and up, they are based on the Athlon64.
Having said that, you have a 2300+ so you would probably be fine with the athlon build.
rgds
Franki
Peter Farrow wrote:
A sempron is basically an Athlon XP....
So you should use the Athlon kernel...
P.
Olaf Greve wrote:
Hi,
In my quest for finding good means to run W*nd*ws programs like IE and Ultraedit I have just decided to give Wine a go.
Now, the machine I have has an AMD Sempron 2300 processor, and the CentOS version is version 4 (with all the patches and upgrades applied to it).
The question then becomes: which Wine version can I best use? There are basically two lines that seem to best match CentOS 4, being the one that is RHEL 3 compatible, and, OTOH, the one for Red Hat Linux 9 (which perhaps has a closer matching kernel???).
Also, out of those two lines, which one can I best use: the Athlon version, or the i686 one?
To summarise: My installation is: AMD Sempron 2300 + CentOS 4.
On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 14:28 +0100, Peter Farrow wrote:
A sempron is basically an Athlon XP....
So you should use the Athlon kernel...
P.
With FC3 and EL4 (RH and CentOS) there are no Athlon kernels :)
I would get the Source RPMS (if there are any) for RHEL3 and build them on CentOS-4. Otherwise, you may have library version issues with dependencies.
Hi all,
Thanks a lot for the comments! I've just downloaded and installed the RHEL 3 Athlon version.
I've just now edited the /root/.wine/config file, so I guess I'm ready to give it a go (I'm currently RTFM-ing though, just to make sure I didn't miss anything)...
Then:
I would get the Source RPMS (if there are any) for RHEL3 and build them on CentOS-4. Otherwise, you may have library version issues with dependencies.
Coming from a FreeBSD background I'm very much inclined to do just that. However, as the Wine page states that it's by far preferrable to perform a package installation, I'm trying that first. If something doesn't work, I'll go for the source compilation method...
Cheers! Olafo
Additionally my best guess would be to use the RHEL 3 version of Wine...
P.
Olaf Greve wrote:
Hi,
In my quest for finding good means to run W*nd*ws programs like IE and Ultraedit I have just decided to give Wine a go.
Now, the machine I have has an AMD Sempron 2300 processor, and the CentOS version is version 4 (with all the patches and upgrades applied to it).
The question then becomes: which Wine version can I best use? There are basically two lines that seem to best match CentOS 4, being the one that is RHEL 3 compatible, and, OTOH, the one for Red Hat Linux 9 (which perhaps has a closer matching kernel???).
Also, out of those two lines, which one can I best use: the Athlon version, or the i686 one?
To summarise: My installation is: AMD Sempron 2300 + CentOS 4.
The available options to chose from that I think come closest are:
- RHEL 3 Athlon
- RHEL 3 i686
- RH 9 Athlon
- RH 9 i686
Which one would best fit in your opinion?
Cheers! Olafo _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Hi,
A quick question, I hope...
I have performed a complete package installation on CentOS 4, and upon installing it, as languages I chose English US and English UK.
However... As I also write in Dutch and in Spanish, I need to install these languages as special characters like the 'enye' (= an 'n' with a 'tilde' over it) are currently missing from my system...
Now, I checked the 'System settings' menu and it only seems to allow me to change the default language, but I do not see where I can install additional languages.
Can anyone tell me how to go about this?
Cheers! Olafo
Hi,
Yesterday I asked:
A quick question, I hope...
I have performed a complete package installation on CentOS 4, and upon installing it, as languages I chose English US and English UK.
However... As I also write in Dutch and in Spanish, I need to install these languages as special characters like the 'enye' (= an 'n' with a 'tilde' over it) are currently missing from my system...
Now, I checked the 'System settings' menu and it only seems to allow me to change the default language, but I do not see where I can install additional languages.
Can anyone tell me how to go about this?
Alright, either I'm a doofus or I'm just looking in the wrong place (or both ;) ), but I still can't find where/how to add additional charsets/languages once the system is installed (and meanwhile my business documents are getting messed up due to the lack of such characters)...:O
Does anyone have any idea how to correct this?
Cheers! Olafo
El vie, 22-04-2005 a las 13:51 +0200, Olaf Greve escribió:
Hi,
Yesterday I asked:
A quick question, I hope...
I have performed a complete package installation on CentOS 4, and upon installing it, as languages I chose English US and English UK.
However... As I also write in Dutch and in Spanish, I need to install these languages as special characters like the 'enye' (= an 'n' with a 'tilde' over it) are currently missing from my system...
Now, I checked the 'System settings' menu and it only seems to allow me to change the default language, but I do not see where I can install additional languages.
Can anyone tell me how to go about this?
Alright, either I'm a doofus or I'm just looking in the wrong place (or both ;) ), but I still can't find where/how to add additional charsets/languages once the system is installed (and meanwhile my business documents are getting messed up due to the lack of such characters)...:O
Does anyone have any idea how to correct this?
Have you tried localedef ?
Cheers! Olafo _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Hi,
Have you tried localedef ?
Hmm, I just tried that and set the charmap to UTF-8.
When executing 'locale' the following output is shown: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8 LC_CTYPE="en_GB.UTF-8" LC_NUMERIC="en_GB.UTF-8" LC_TIME="en_GB.UTF-8" LC_COLLATE="en_GB.UTF-8" LC_MONETARY="en_GB.UTF-8" LC_MESSAGES="en_GB.UTF-8" LC_PAPER="en_GB.UTF-8" LC_NAME="en_GB.UTF-8" LC_ADDRESS="en_GB.UTF-8" LC_TELEPHONE="en_GB.UTF-8" LC_MEASUREMENT="en_GB.UTF-8" LC_IDENTIFICATION="en_GB.UTF-8" LC_ALL=
Now, UTF-8 ought to support pretty much ALL characters in the world, however, perhaps in my case the set is restricted to solely the characters used in the UK?!?
Does anyone know how to test if the special characters are properly installed, and/or how to use them in 'the Windows way'? I.e. on Windows platforms, when I need e.g. the 'enye' I simply type <ALT>164 and there it is.
Can anyone tell me how to achieve the same under CentOS?
Cheers! Olafo
On 4/26/05 6:36 AM, Olaf Greve wrote:
Now, UTF-8 ought to support pretty much ALL characters in the world, however, perhaps in my case the set is restricted to solely the characters used in the UK?!?
Your typeface needs to support those characters, too. :-/
Does anyone know how to test if the special characters are properly installed, and/or how to use them in 'the Windows way'?
Try gnome-character-map.
Hi,
As you may recall from my question a few days ago, I'm looking for a good alternative for W*nd*ws' Ultraedit.
Currently I'm trying Nedit (version 5.4-3, according to rpm -qa | grep nedit) and I like that one.
However... For some reason there's no syntax highlighting definition for PHP files (whereas most of the others, such as C and Perl are supported)....:(
Now, I could of course create a custom settings file for that, but in order not to reinvent the wheel I was wondering if anyone perhaps knows if such a settings file is already available.
I hope someone has such a file...
Cheers! Olafo
Olaf Greve wrote:
Now, I could of course create a custom settings file for that, but in order not to reinvent the wheel I was wondering if anyone perhaps knows if such a settings file is already available.
You can find them (and many others) on the NEdit FTP server:
ftp://ftp.nedit.org/pub/NEdit/contrib/highlighting/
-te
On 4/22/05, Troy Engel tengel@fluid.com wrote:
Olaf Greve wrote:
Now, I could of course create a custom settings file for that, but in order not to reinvent the wheel I was wondering if anyone perhaps knows if such a settings file is already available.
I personally use gphpedit. :) http://www.gphpedit.org/
Hi,
I personally use gphpedit. :) http://www.gphpedit.org/
Oooooh sweet! I just installed and built the source RPM and that is one fine editor!
Just in case I also installed the recommended syntax highlighting files for nedit, but for the PHP files I will definetely use gphpedit.
Tnx a million!
Cheers, Olafo
Matt Bottrell wrote:
I personally use gphpedit. :) http://www.gphpedit.org/
Wow, that's really pimp. Thanks for the link. :)
-te
- Ultraedit (!!! very important !!!) - vi is cool for terminal stuff,
but for programming etc. I prefer Ultraedit (column mode, multiple windows, replace in files, regular expressions, etc.).
Try kedit, kate and gedit, by default they look quite plain, but they can be configured via the options to enable features. Also Kdevelop is pretty good also and might be just what you need.
- Jasc Paint Shop Pro, or Adobe Photoshop - often The Gimp is mentioned,
but is it really as powerful? I particularly like PSP (as I think it's more intuitive than PS), but over here at work we also use PS a lot... I fear this may be one of the very few remaining reasons to keep W*nd*ws at all on the 2nd drive...:(
Gimp is as powerful as PSP, though probably not quite as easy to use but there are tons of online tutes which google will happily reveal. Gimp is probably not as powerful as Photoshop, but by the same token it isn't that far behind either.
- Flash MX (7.20). I fear there is no Linux variant of this one, but I'm
asking just in case...
This one I can't help you with. Macromedia (now Adobe) has said in the past that they are giving serious consideration to supporting Linux and Adobe has actually released some code as open source so it really could happen. http://news.com.com/Macromedia+to+test+Linux+support/2100-7344_3-5170061.htm...
But all is not lost, you can write docs in openoffice.org Impress and save them to swf, but that isn't much of a professional package for flash production.
Google will probably give you more hints.
rgds
frank
Franki wrote:
- Ultraedit (!!! very important !!!) - vi is cool for terminal stuff,
but for programming etc. I prefer Ultraedit (column mode, multiple windows, replace in files, regular expressions, etc.).
Try kedit, kate and gedit, by default they look quite plain, but they can be configured via the options to enable features. Also Kdevelop is pretty good also and might be just what you need.
IMHO Emacs variants are good alternative (after some time to learn some hot keys)
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018, Olaf Greve wrote:
- Ultraedit (!!! very important !!!) - vi is cool for terminal stuff, but for
programming etc. I prefer Ultraedit (column mode, multiple windows, replace in files, regular expressions, etc.).
joe does column mode fine, just like Word*Star ;)
- Jasc Paint Shop Pro, or Adobe Photoshop - often The Gimp is mentioned, but
is it really as powerful? I particularly like PSP (as I think it's more intuitive than PS), but over here at work we also use PS a lot... I fear this may be one of the very few remaining reasons to keep W*nd*ws at all on the 2nd drive...:(
yes, the Gimp is
- Flash MX (7.20). I fear there is no Linux variant of this one, but I'm
asking just in case...
MM Flash works here -- no issues
- Russ Herrold
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018, Olaf Greve wrote:
Jasc Paint Shop Pro, or Adobe Photoshop - often The Gimp is mentioned, but is it really as powerful? I particularly like PSP (as I think it's more intuitive than PS), but over here at work we also use PS a lot... I fear this may be one of the very few remaining reasons to keep W*nd*ws at all on the 2nd drive...:(
GIMP has the features & capability of Photoshop. However, if you think Photoshop's interface is not intuitive GIMP may create despair (I will admit that as a long, long-time Photoshop user I've succumbed to subliminal interface training and expect other graphics apps to look & work like Photoshop 'cause thats how they should')
regards Dave www.HornfordAssociates.com
GIMP has the features & capability of Photoshop. However, if you think Photoshop's interface is not intuitive GIMP may create despair (I will admit that as a long, long-time Photoshop user I've succumbed to subliminal interface training and expect other graphics apps to look & work like Photoshop 'cause thats how they should')
Check out gimpshop, a fork of GIMP which changes the layout of the user interface to resemble PS. (http://freshmeat.net/projects/gimpshop/)
/Morten
On 4/19/18, Olaf Greve o.greve@axis.nl wrote:
Hi,
Well, the installation of the dual W*nd*ws 2000 and CentOS boot worked swell. I have followed the instructions regarding first setting up Win2K on a separate drive, then making that the slave drive, and setting up CentOS on the second drive. After performing the Grub patch, it now works fine! :)
I already like CentOS a lot, and I've got most of the important things set-up (i.e. Firefox, Thunderbird, Gaim, Openoffice, webserver software, ...), so I'm almost ready to roll.
However... There are a few W*nd*ws programs which I actually like, and for which I'd like to get good Linux alternatives. I hope someone can make some good suggestions for that...
In particular, I'm looking for good substitutes for the following W*nd*ws software:
- Ultraedit (!!! very important !!!) - vi is cool for terminal stuff,
but for programming etc. I prefer Ultraedit (column mode, multiple windows, replace in files, regular expressions, etc.).
- Jasc Paint Shop Pro, or Adobe Photoshop - often The Gimp is mentioned,
but is it really as powerful? I particularly like PSP (as I think it's more intuitive than PS), but over here at work we also use PS a lot... I fear this may be one of the very few remaining reasons to keep W*nd*ws at all on the 2nd drive...:(
- Flash MX (7.20). I fear there is no Linux variant of this one, but I'm
asking just in case...
Cheers! Olafo
Give Cross-Over Office a try. It's fairly cheep and works pretty well, and their list of supported programs just keep growing. That way you can still run those applications you haven't found a OSS/Linux replacement for without rebooting all the time.
Best regards Michael Boman
Olaf Greve wrote:
Hi,
Well, the installation of the dual W*nd*ws 2000 and CentOS boot worked swell. I have followed the instructions regarding first setting up Win2K on a separate drive, then making that the slave drive, and setting up CentOS on the second drive. After performing the Grub patch, it now works fine! :)
I already like CentOS a lot, and I've got most of the important things set-up (i.e. Firefox, Thunderbird, Gaim, Openoffice, webserver software, ...), so I'm almost ready to roll.
However... There are a few W*nd*ws programs which I actually like, and for which I'd like to get good Linux alternatives. I hope someone can make some good suggestions for that...
In particular, I'm looking for good substitutes for the following W*nd*ws software:
- Ultraedit (!!! very important !!!) - vi is cool for terminal stuff,
but for programming etc. I prefer Ultraedit (column mode, multiple windows, replace in files, regular expressions, etc.).
- Jasc Paint Shop Pro, or Adobe Photoshop - often The Gimp is
mentioned, but is it really as powerful? I particularly like PSP (as I think it's more intuitive than PS), but over here at work we also use PS a lot... I fear this may be one of the very few remaining reasons to keep W*nd*ws at all on the 2nd drive...:(
- Flash MX (7.20). I fear there is no Linux variant of this one, but
I'm asking just in case...
Cheers! Olafo _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
.
Just do a clean install of windows with all the updates...yet just create the partition big enough to run the apps you need and any files you may create....
thats what i do...
Have you considered using Wine (Wine Is Not an Emulator). That may allow you to run your favorite windows apps on Linux.
Michael.
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 23:53, Chris Weisiger wrote:
Olaf Greve wrote:
Hi,
Well, the installation of the dual W*nd*ws 2000 and CentOS boot worked swell. I have followed the instructions regarding first setting up Win2K on a separate drive, then making that the slave drive, and setting up CentOS on the second drive. After performing the Grub patch, it now works fine! :)
I already like CentOS a lot, and I've got most of the important things set-up (i.e. Firefox, Thunderbird, Gaim, Openoffice, webserver software, ...), so I'm almost ready to roll.
However... There are a few W*nd*ws programs which I actually like, and for which I'd like to get good Linux alternatives. I hope someone can make some good suggestions for that...
In particular, I'm looking for good substitutes for the following W*nd*ws software:
- Ultraedit (!!! very important !!!) - vi is cool for terminal stuff,
but for programming etc. I prefer Ultraedit (column mode, multiple windows, replace in files, regular expressions, etc.).
- Jasc Paint Shop Pro, or Adobe Photoshop - often The Gimp is
mentioned, but is it really as powerful? I particularly like PSP (as I think it's more intuitive than PS), but over here at work we also use PS a lot... I fear this may be one of the very few remaining reasons to keep W*nd*ws at all on the 2nd drive...:(
- Flash MX (7.20). I fear there is no Linux variant of this one, but
I'm asking just in case...
Cheers! Olafo _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
.
Just do a clean install of windows with all the updates...yet just create the partition big enough to run the apps you need and any files you may create....
thats what i do...
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
- Ultraedit (!!! very important !!!) - vi is cool for terminal stuff,
but for programming etc. I prefer Ultraedit (column mode, multiple windows, replace in files, regular expressions, etc.).
NEdit has all these features you mentioned, and more.
- Jasc Paint Shop Pro, or Adobe Photoshop - often The Gimp is
mentioned, but is it really as powerful? I particularly like PSP (as I think it's more intuitive than PS), but over here at work we also use PS a lot... I fear this may be one of the very few remaining reasons to keep W*nd*ws at all on the 2nd drive...:(
Yes, Gimp is very powerfull. You can also find an Adobe Photoshop like skin for Gimp to ease your migration. I forgot the name of that skin though ... :(
Adrian Coman wrote on 17 May 2005 07:54:
Yes, Gimp is very powerfull. You can also find an Adobe Photoshop like skin for Gimp to ease your migration. I forgot the name of that skin though ... :(
Bah. I work for a film visual effects facility and most of the artists here dislike The Gimp tremendously. We've been using Wine to run Photoshop 7 quite successfully (and we're in the middle of getting Photoshop CS to co-operate at the moment - it's only a matter of time!).
Me? I quite The Gimp, but I do prefer Photoshop CS2 over anything else.
M.
Bah. I work for a film visual effects facility and most of the artists here dislike The Gimp tremendously. We've been using Wine to run Photoshop 7 quite successfully (and we're in the middle of getting Photoshop CS to co-operate at the moment - it's only a matter of time!).
Maybe you could gather all the features not present or not properly working that make you team dislike Gimp and send them to the Gimp developing team.
Adrian Coman wrote on 17 May 2005 10:53:
Maybe you could gather all the features not present or not properly working that make you team dislike Gimp and send them to the Gimp developing team.
Incidentally there is also Cinepaint (http://cinepaint.sourceforge.net/), which is the film world's equivalent of Gimp, but even then there is little uptake. But you do have a point - we *should* be providing feedback and we're not.
Regards,
Martyn
Hi,
For a project at work we are currently installing a distributed software development platform which has been developed years ago. All swell, of course, but the issue is that it depends on rsh for remote application invocation.
Now... I have always been taught that rsh, rlogin and rexec are BAD and that one should really stick to SSH only.
Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to completely patch over the platform such that it will use SSH (and frankly, that's really a task the official developers should perform!), so, I'd like to temporarily enable rsh.
Now, I did some quick RTFM-ing and checking in Google, and it looks like this is provided by xinetd.
From Gnome's services menu I have enabled rsh (and hence xinetd), but I do not yet seem to be able to remotely perform something like "rsh <machine name> ls". It just says "permission denied". Good. No problem. In fact, this is probably good. ;)
So, to proceed with this the proper way, can anyone tell me how I can properly configure rsh such that I do not compromise system security too much (note: I am behind a firewall and my machine is not accessible in any way from the outside world, so there is not all too much concern in opening up rsh, even with root access)?
Also, on a more general note: I'm not familiar yet with proper PAM concepts and configuration. Does anyone know a good (and preferrably not all too long) reference guide with which I can quickly and properly familiarise myself with the concepts and the proper way of configuring it?
Tnx in advance, and cheers! Olafo
This really depends on what kind of functionality you need. _But_ you could simply make /usr/bin/rsh a symlink to /usr/bin/ssh and make sure "ssh machine ls" works - the easiest way to get that to work is to run "ssk-keygen -t dsa" on the client and copy the resultant ~/.ssh/id_dsa.pub into the servers ~/.ssh/authorized_keys and make sure the server has RSAAuthentication yes in /etc/ssh/sshd_config
although, this of course depends on what actual functionality of rsh/rlogin/rexec you need (ie. commandline switches and whether you actually need rlogin)...
Cheers, MaZe
On Wed, 25 May 2005, Olaf Greve wrote:
Hi,
For a project at work we are currently installing a distributed software development platform which has been developed years ago. All swell, of course, but the issue is that it depends on rsh for remote application invocation.
Now... I have always been taught that rsh, rlogin and rexec are BAD and that one should really stick to SSH only.
Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to completely patch over the platform such that it will use SSH (and frankly, that's really a task the official developers should perform!), so, I'd like to temporarily enable rsh.
Now, I did some quick RTFM-ing and checking in Google, and it looks like this is provided by xinetd.
From Gnome's services menu I have enabled rsh (and hence xinetd), but I do not yet seem to be able to remotely perform something like "rsh <machine name> ls". It just says "permission denied". Good. No problem. In fact, this is probably good. ;)
So, to proceed with this the proper way, can anyone tell me how I can properly configure rsh such that I do not compromise system security too much (note: I am behind a firewall and my machine is not accessible in any way from the outside world, so there is not all too much concern in opening up rsh, even with root access)?
Also, on a more general note: I'm not familiar yet with proper PAM concepts and configuration. Does anyone know a good (and preferrably not all too long) reference guide with which I can quickly and properly familiarise myself with the concepts and the proper way of configuring it?
Tnx in advance, and cheers! Olafo _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 5/25/05, Olaf Greve o.greve@axis.nl wrote:
Hi,
For a project at work we are currently installing a distributed software development platform which has been developed years ago. All swell, of course, but the issue is that it depends on rsh for remote application invocation.
Now... I have always been taught that rsh, rlogin and rexec are BAD and that one should really stick to SSH only.
Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to completely patch over the platform such that it will use SSH (and frankly, that's really a task the official developers should perform!), so, I'd like to temporarily enable rsh.
Or a quick work-around:
cd /usr/bin mv rsh rsh.old ln -s ssh rsh
They are command line compatible for exactly this reason, with some restrictions. Quick google turned up this: http://www.hn.edu.cn/book/NetWork/NetworkingBookshelf_2ndEd/ssh/ch04_05.htm
And please remember to distribute the ssh keys propperly so you don't need to enter password all the time...
/Mike
Hi guys,
Or a quick work-around:
cd /usr/bin mv rsh rsh.old ln -s ssh rsh
Tnx guys! Doing just that, in combination with the ssh-keygen -t dsa tricky, nicely did the trick and fools the platform to make it think it's using RSH where it is actually using SSH. :)
Cheers, Olafo
Can anyone give me an answer to the following? -Which OS can best be installed first, CentOS or XP? -Are there special actions required to enable proper dual booting? -Which boot manager can be used best CentOS' one or XP's one?
I strongly recommend you to install Windows and Linux independently on separate disks. The trick is to make Windows believe that it is sitting on the master drive, while it indeed is on the slave :-). See http://www.bioxray.dk/~mok/dual-boot.html for a more detailed description!
There are many advantages to this approach, most importantly you can always change the setup without having to repartition *shudder*.
Cheers, Morten
Hi,
I strongly recommend you to install Windows and Linux independently on separate disks. The trick is to make Windows believe that it is sitting on the master drive, while it indeed is on the slave :-). See http://www.bioxray.dk/~mok/dual-boot.html for a more detailed description!
Thanks for this suggestion! Indeed I will do just that, as I intent to fully phase out the Win installation once I get a Vmware copy and it all runs fine (for the time being I'll have to go for a dual boot system). This way once Windows goes out the door it should be very easy to fully reformat the drive as an additional Linus drive (or just leave Win. sitting there and use the drive as an additional FAT32 datastorage).
Cheers! Olafo
On 4/14/05, Olaf Greve o.greve@axis.nl wrote:
Hi,
I find myself in the lucky position to receive a new desktop machine tomorrow. :)
Now, for quite a while I've been wanting to make a switch to any Unix based system for my normal work environment (= Web development), but I will still need to test my work on Windows as well.
Now.... As tomorrow I will install a fresh new machine (with a 40GB HD), I'd like to do the following: -Install CentOS as primary OS on a 30GB partition. -Install W*nd*ws XP as secondary system on a 10GB partition. -Plug in my current secondary NTFS drive for storing additional W*nd*ws stuff.
What I'm uncertain about, is the proper way to do this, and the order in which to install both OSes.
Can anyone give me an answer to the following? -Which OS can best be installed first, CentOS or XP? -Are there special actions required to enable proper dual booting? -Which boot manager can be used best CentOS' one or XP's one? -Can CentOS read (and perhaps also write?) from the NTFS partitions? -Hypothetically: would installing VMWare and installing XP in that give me pretty much 100% XP compatibility for at the very least the various web browsers such as IE, and also for XP Office?
Thanks a lot in advance!
Cheers, Olafo _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I know I am a little late to the game and you got great advice, but let me add one other thing that I did. When I installed Windows, I created a small fat32 partition. Windows sees it as E:, but I can mount it under Linux. This allows me to place files I need to pass between the systems on that partition, thus allowing me to format the Windows partition using NTFS preserving the security.
-
Adrian Coman -
Barry Brimer -
Chris Weisiger -
Cipriano Groenendal -
darshan jadav -
Dave Hornford -
Edward Croft -
Franki -
Greg Knaddison -
Hardy Beltran Monasterios -
Ian mu -
Jay Leafey -
John Newbigin -
Johnny Hughes -
Maciej Żenczykowski -
Mark A. Lewis -
Martyn Drake -
Matt Bottrell -
Michael Boman -
Michael Weisman -
Morten Kjeldgaard -
Morten Kjeldgaard -
Olaf Greve -
Paul Heinlein -
Peter Farrow -
Phil Schaffner -
R P Herrold -
Romeo Ninov -
ryanag＠zoominternet.net -
tobaccofarm -
Troy Engel